"No Firearms Allowed"

[RichardR]

I practiced law in Hendricks County for 16 years before coming to Tennessee, the sign would act as notice that if you are armed, you are not permitted on the property and therefore they need not give any other prior notice. I believe that most LEOs would interprete those signs in that manner.

I agree that it could be interpreted that way.

Here are a couple of snippets of the statute in question:

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;

----------------------snip---------------------

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or

 

[rebr]

I have NEVER seen a "No Firearms Allowed Sign" in a business' entryway, or anywhere else for that matter!!

the local sex shop has one =[

 

[eldirector]

This has come up on hear a few times, and I'm glad someone has finally thought to ask a prosecuting attorney. Not that their answer will be 100% correct, but it is the answer we would face in court.

My $0.02: The sign serves as notice under the statute. It is trespass if you enter.

In reality, you would likely get a SECOND notice, and be asked to leave, before you would be charged with trespassing.

BTW: all of these "just CC" posts do not answer the legal question. As a matter of fact, you may be suggesting that we break the law.

 

[Prometheus]

I agree that it could be interpreted that way.

Here are a couple of snippets of the statute in question:

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;

----------------------snip---------------------

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public; or

red:
A corporation is, by legal definition, a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. A solid argument can be made under this statute that this does not pertain to Costco (for example).

Green:
A sign is not a person or an agent. This is the hard and fast one that has no 'wiggle room' under Indiana law.

Could an ignorant cop charge you under this? Sure. As the saying goes you can beat the rap but not the ride. Cops do illegal things all the time, arresting under this statute for Billy Bob carrying into Costco would be illegal. A civil rights suit would end with a settlement out of court.

An anti-gun prosecutor may try and run with it, but any two bit lackey out of law school could have the charges tossed with little effort.

 

[IndySSD]

This is probably the best advice. If they don't want them there, respect their wishes and spend your dollars elsewhere.

This is how I choose to operate.

 

[littletommy]

I think its always best to respect the wishes of the owners of the place .

Oh I do too, I am all for property owners rights, and I don't make it a habit to frequent places that don't allow firearms. Now, if I'm at the local shopping center, and have been CC all day, and need something from the one place that has a sign on their door barring weapons, I'm not going to the car to lock up my gun, just to run into a store for a few minutes. That creates a more risky situation all the way around. If I've been CC without incident all day, why dis-arm for one place? I'll take my chances in the store, rather than risk my car being broke into and my gun stolen.

 

[eldirector]

Are you ignoring the blue text? Seems pretty clear that b2 specifically addresses how entry can be denied in a1.

Also, Corporate Law does give a corp many of the same rights as a real person. In know Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it does a decent job of explaining this:
Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RichardR]

Are you ignoring the blue text? Seems pretty clear that b2 specifically addresses how entry can be denied in a1.

Agreed & unfortunately I think most judges/juries would agree too (if criminal trespass charges were actually filed).

 

[MikePapa1]

Prometheus, I don't want to get into an argument the first day I'm here, but I suggest you reread what you posted. If I, as the owner or an agent of the owner, post a sign prohibiting weapons and you carrying in a gun, you are trespassing. The statue you quoted shows that clearly. Now I've only been practicing criminal law in Indiana and Tennessee totaling 27 years, so you might know better than I do, but I'd suggest you hire your "two bit lackey out of law school" and see how you fare in court.

The owner has made his position clear by posting the sign and if you enter in opposition to it, you are committing a crime. The best thing to do, in my view, is to notify any such store why you as a law abiding CCP holder will NOT shop in his store. If enough of us do that, things will change to bring down those silly signs. My criminal clients simply ignore them as they do the other laws they violate and that's what we need owners to understand.

 

[RichardR]

Prometheus, I don't want to get into an argument the first day I'm here, but I suggest you reread what you posted. If I, as the owner or an agent of the owner, post a sign prohibiting weapons and you carrying in a gun, you are trespassing. The statue you quoted shows that clearly. Now I've only been practicing criminal law in Indiana and Tennessee totaling 27 years, so you might know better than I do, but I'd suggest you hire your "two bit lackey out of law school" and see how you fare in court.

The owner has made his position clear by posting the sign and if you enter in opposition to it, you are committing a crime. The best thing to do, in my view, is to notify any such store why you as a law abiding CCP holder will NOT shop in his store. If enough of us do that, things will change to bring down those silly signs. My criminal clients simply ignore them as they do the other laws they violate and that's what we need owners to understand.

Welcome to INGO & thanks for helping to clarify the legality's involved in this topic Mike.

This is a very important topic that everyone should be absolutely crystal clear on the legal aspects involved here, so please do not worry about stepping on anyone's toes (mine included) when discussing all of the various legal issues that are discussed on this forum.

 

[FULLMAGAZINE]

Recent change in signage at Emergency-room doors.

Used to be there was a S&W wheelie with a red bar through
it and words like, "No firearms permitted beyond this point."
Last night I noticed the same wheel-gun and red bar, but the
words said "No concealed weapons beyond this point." A small
change but a HUGE difference. As long as it does not show, I
guess it is O.K. I always carried IWB anyway, and it was a
Glock, not a wheel-gun, so I was not really transgressing. (LOL)
Minor change for some, BIG relief for me. But what if a sign says,
"No Nazis allowed beyond this point" ...or Christians...or Mormons...
or Catholics: our complaint MUST be a Constitutional and Civil
Rights complaint. Even a KY lawyer can figger that out!! Full M.

 

[Prometheus]

I've seen several people here trying to claim a corporation has the same Rights and an individual (or close to it).

Corporations have privileges and protections under the law. They have NO rights. None.

A store could post a sign saying "No blacks". Even the most racist cop couldn't prosecute the black person because the sign doesn't mean jack. Aside from the fact that a business open to the public is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

MikePapa, no arguments here, just good banter. I wouldn't personally stake my future on the thoughts of any one atty/lawyer any more so than I would any random tax accountant either. Most attorneys choose the completely wrong angle from which to angle their case. Why argue the merits of the case when you can just have it tossed from the start? Unless you get paid by the hour anyway, lol.

The best thing to do, in my view, is to notify any such store why you as a law abiding CCP holder will NOT shop in his store.

Also, there is no such thing in Indiana as a "CCP" . It is a LTCH. I'm guessing most of your 27 years was in TN and not in IN.

 

[ATM]

"No concealed weapons beyond this point." A small change but a HUGE difference.
As long as it does not show, I guess it is O.K.

Think you got that backwards. It must be showing to cross that point.

OC FTW!

 

[eldirector]

I've seen several people here trying to claim a corporation has the same Rights and an individual (or close to it).

Corporations have privileges and protections under the law. They have NO rights. None.

Not claiming, just quoting:
U.S. Code
And more readable here:
United States Code: Title 1,1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth | LII / Legal Information Institute

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Comparing a No Guns sign to No Blacks sign is apple to oranges. Race, religion, and gender are protected classes. The federal government has placed restrictions on businesses to accommodate these protected classes. LTCH holders are NOT a protected class. A business could very easily put up (and enforce) a sign that did not allow you to bring ANY possession onto their premises (no ballcaps, no gang colors, no vulgar t-shirts, etc...), even though you have the RIGHT to self-expression.

 

[Lex Concord]

Use the "drive thru"

 

[MikePapa1]

A store could post a sign saying "No blacks". Even the most racist cop couldn't prosecute the black person because the sign doesn't mean jack. Aside from the fact that a business open to the public is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION.

MikePapa, no arguments here, just good banter. I wouldn't personally stake my future on the thoughts of any one atty/lawyer any more so than I would any random tax accountant either. Most attorneys choose the completely wrong angle from which to angle their case. Why argue the merits of the case when you can just have it tossed from the start? Unless you get paid by the hour anyway, lol.


Also, there is no such thing in Indiana as a "CCP" . It is a LTCH. I'm guessing most of your 27 years was in TN and not in IN.

I'm glad that you are so wise, Prometheus. Putting up a no trespassing, no soliciting or no weapons sign, you know, signs authorized by law are hardly analogous to your proposed "No Blacks" sign as the latter violates the law.

I'm thrilled that you, with your lengthy experience in trying cases, are so free with your advice on how we attorneys are doing it wrong.

As to my experience, now its getting close. I practiced in Hendricks County from 1984 to 1999 when I came to Tennessee. I was using CCP as the generic description rather than the technical one, but I shall be more careful in the future. You see, even in Tennessee its not really a CCP but rather a HCP.

You should feel free to ignore the signs. If you are arrested, please feel free to keep us informed on how your legal theories hold up. I'm sure with your legal knowledge, you'll wow the judge. Hey, suggest to him about the two bit just out of law school stuff. I'm sure that will be impressive. LOL.

 

[jbombelli]

I'll be asking a REAL attorney tomorrow, who is currently licensed and practicing criminal defense here in Indiana.

But from what my OLD attorney told me, no guns signs are just like no flip flops signs. If you wear flip flops, you're not "trespassing", you're violating their rule on flip flops, and they may ask you to leave as a result. If you carry a gun, you're not trespassing. You're violating their rule on guns.

My OLD attorney told me that they have to ask you to leave and you refuse, or have posted a sign denying you entry, such as "jbombelli is banned from this establishment", and you enter anyway, in order to charge you with trespassing.

But I'll check tomorrow (or possibly Sunday) and post back here. I'll withhold my arrogance, heckling and fingerpointing until then.

 

[Lucas156]

So if it says dont come in without shoes or your shirt and you go in any way without your shoes or your shirt then they can arrest you for criminal trespass?

 

[Lucas156]

More importantly can anyone show a case where someone has been prosecuted for not seeing the sign?

 

[sj kahr k40]

I spoke to judge about this topic during lunch, and in his opinion a person would have to ask you to leave before you are trespassing. He was a prosecutor for 17 years and doesn't think they would prosecute unless you were asked to leave.